About your Search

20121226
20130103
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
honor you. and then, finally, we're also going to be losing jim webb and jim demint. jim, as we all know, jim webb came here, did something very few freshmen can do by getting a major new piece of legislation passed, the new g.i. bill, and on the committee he's been really critical to our thinking about the far east. he was the first american to visit burma in ten years, and i'm proud to say i think i may have been the one who was there before that, but he changed the policy, he knew we had to lift the sanctions and move it, and his contribution to thinking about the trans-pacific partnership, the continued efforts on vietnam mias has been a superb contribution. he's a great thinker, and we appreciate his service. and jim demint, jim demint and i have, obviously, disagreed on a number of treaties and initiatives in front of the committee, bun of the great things about -- but one of the great things about jim demint is you know where he stands. he knows what he believes, we do. he's been a terrific advocate for his point of view, and we're confident that in his, in the new hat that he's g
of the root causes? >> i think and i am not pointing fingers, when we went after jim wright, newt was the speaker and jim was forced out of office. they went after newt. the combat became very personal. that is one of the things that started this movement. over time, i think it has become political as well as personal. much more political and personal. >> she said raising cain, are -- -- you said raising cain. you will the gavel for the oversight committee and use that to raise the number of investigations especially of the clinton administration. what do you see as your legacy of that tenure? >> i think bill clinton, president clinton and hilary as secretary of state do not like me very much. i was chair of the government oversight committee during the time we were investigating whitewater and we were investigating campaign contributions that came from sources outside the united states and from various people. there was an awful lot to that. we had people testifying like johnny chung, they had contributed money to gain favor with the white house. there were other illegal contribu
ran for the senate against each other in new york state. the night they were both nominated, jim buckley got up and said, i look forward to running against professor moynihan. jim buckley is referring to you as professor moynihan. pat said, the mudslinging has begun. what you are in for tonight, however, it is a lecture on political philosophy. take notes, there will be a test. in 1953, the year in which the words "under god" were added to the pledge of allegiance, it he proclaimed the fourth of july and national day of prayer. on that day, eisenhower fished in the morning, golfed in the afternoon, and played bridge in the evening. there were prayers -- perhaps when the chief executive faced a daunting putt. this was not his first foray into the darkened ground of the relationship between religion and american politics. three days before christmas in 1952, president elect ike made a speech in which he said "our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in the deeply felt religious faith and i do not care what it is." he received a much ridicule from his cultured despis
that would vote against it because he is a fairly conservative republican. host: he will be replacing jim demint in the senate, who is stepping down. jim demint, one of three that did not vote last night. guest: i do not know if that means he was not here, or he abstained. i imagine he could not have voted to support this. host: donna, independent caller. caller: my concern is that i am basically lost in the cracks. i was a hard worker, paid my taxes, i had an accident, and now i have cancer. i get my medicare, but still i am having to pay for more insurance. my social security check went up, but i have to pay the high price of medical care because of the bills, and it is not fair because i can not get supplemental insurance to help me pay for my disease. i do not think it is fair enough to where i am lost in the crack, and i can barely make it. all of my money goes directly to medical costs. about i'm sorry to hear that, if a tragedy, but she points out the problem. when you go after 2% of the taxpayers and small businesses to fix the problems better on our shoulders, it is picking the w
been going on for years in iowa, my friend, former colleague, jim leech and i had written about that. it's happening in california, in arizona, even a little bit in florida. that is part of the problem. nationally they got more than a million more votes than republicans who ran for the house of representatives. yet they come into this with a 5-vote margin and there are some areas where in north carolina there were more votes for democrats than republicans but there are only 20 -- 27% of the representatives are democrats. it confuses the notion of mandate. the president won decisively, the president picked up ground and we had a million more votes nationwide for the house of representatives. that doesn't sound like much of a national mandate to continue the policies of the republicans over the last decade or so. host: let's go to the republican line, david from ohio. i would love to be able to buy my children ferraris or the president kept on saying he wanted a balanced attack. to this problem. which i agree that you had to increase the revenues, but you also got to address the spendi
gone up. guest: i guess that's one way to look at it, sure. host: let's go to floral city, florida. jim on the republicans line. caller: good morning. i don't so much have a question but a comment. i feel that most of the conversation in washington is about money and it's more, more, more, more. they're going to waste every dime they get. so the problem i consider is that they have too much money. not that they have too little. they don't need more. if we were to update our computer system we could probably do 60% to 70% of our governmental business on a computer and let the people run it instead of our bureaucrats. it just makes no sense. i've only heard just a very few words regarding the fact that they spend too much money. guest: we do. we spend too much money. and unfortunately you're absolutely right. we don't hear that enough and for that reason that was the reason we got the compromise last night. enough people are willing to look the other way on the spending. again, i understand the folks who voted for it. both democrats and republicans alike. they don't want to go over the cl
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)